A searchable audio archive from the 2013-2016 legislative sessions of the North Carolina General Assembly.

searching for

Reliance on Information Posted The information presented on or through the website is made available solely for general information purposes. We do not warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of this information. Any reliance you place on such information is strictly at your own risk. We disclaim all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on such materials by you or any other visitor to the Website, or by anyone who may be informed of any of its contents. Please see our Terms of Use for more information.

Senate | May 14, 2013 | Committee Room | Agriculture

before you start, Jeff, needs to say something.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Thank you Mr. Chairman. Just to expedite the movement of bills today,
we've put together bill packets that are being passed out now, it has
all the PCSs and summaries that you'll hear today. They're in order that
they appear on the calendar, so PCS for 515 is on the top of what you're
seeing. The code on these is different from the code on PCSs you
received last night, they've gone through proofreading overnight, the
only changes that would have been made are technical changes that were
caught in proofreading. Otherwise the substance of the PCSs are the
same.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Sen. Gunn.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Mr. Chairman.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Sen. Ford.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
This is a question, may I ask a question at this time to staff
concerning the announcement that was just made?
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Yes.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Is this information available electronically.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
It was emailed to you last night.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
The PCSs were sent out last night. Some of the summaries that were
prepared last night were sent out, some of the summaries were just done
this morning, they have not been sent out to you yet. All this will be
on the dashboard before it gets to the floor. So some of it yes, some of
it no.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Sen. Gunn, you're up.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Thank you Mr. Chair, members of the committee, and I would like to thank
Sen. Wade for being here also.
There's one thing that I can say unequivocally to start this meeting,
and that there is not one single person that I believe that is happy
with the quality of the water in Jordan Lake. We understand the economic
engine that Jordan Lake serves, we understand the hundreds of thousands
of people that are affected by Jordan Lake every day, we understand that
it is a viable engine for growth, a water supply, for recreation, for
wildlife conservation. But here's where the problems lies, folks.
A little history, and putting it in a little bit of historic context:
Back when this lake was built, and back in the 70s when it was being
compounded, the feds knew, and they didn't make any single bunch about
it that this would be an impaired water source. Here's what our bill is
going to do: As you notice on the front page, it talks about a little
bit of history and it states without any exception that we knew what we
were getting and the feds knew what they were providing when we did this
lake. What this bill also is gonna do is it's gonna clearly state that
the legislative intent, that the current water quality strategies are
not working, and it will set forth a new strategy to improve the water
quality of the lake by developing new rules. What this bill will also do
is it will immediately repeal the related session laws and direct repeal
of rules by October 13, and this allows enforcement of rules prior to
repeal. This bill will also create a LRC study commission made up of 5
from the Senate, 5 from the House, and they will immediately begin to
research the issue during the interim. Including reiteration of
authority to higher technical consultants, and they will provide
legislative proposals to the 2014 General Assembly.
I cannot emphasize to you enough, cannot emphasize to you enough that we
have had tireless discussions with DNR and they have been very
cooperative. And the bottom line is this folks, it has always been
impaired, it's impaired now, and every single source of reasonable data
will tell you that this lake, biding by the Jordan Lake rules that are
now in place, will stay impaired forever, regardless of the amount of
money that is put in mitigation efforts upstream. Hundreds of thousands
of dollars have been put to mitigation upstream, in many different
areas. This has become a tremendous burden on the municipalities

Tremendous burden on developers, on tax payers, and we have got nothing
to show for it, folks. Now I’ve got studies from DENR going back eight
years. I’ve got them with us. You may not have it in your handout but
bottom line is in eight years, up through 2012, there has been no marked
improvement in the Jordan Lake and in some cases there’s been some
degradation of some of the nutrient levels. Development has been stopped
in the Jordan Lake basin, among many municipalities. The tax burden
continues to increase. Now here’s the positive. And here’s what I like
about what we’re going to do. Technology today did not exist like it
does now. Technology has improved and DENR has acknowledged that in our
conversations with them. These new technologies required us to take a
new regulatory approach to the Jordan Lake. There is simply no sense in
us continuing upstream to do mitigation efforts that are not showing any
market improvement of our lake. Simple phrase, let’s quite throwing good
money after bad. I will be glad to answer any questions that you may
have. We want the purpose of this, the purpose of this bill is to have a
chance to improve the water quality of the lake. We are convinced beyond
a shadow of a doubt that mitigation efforts upstream are going to have
no impact on the quality of the Jordan Lake and we need to concentrate
our efforts in the lake or at the lake, and we’re going to work
tirelessly in the next year to come back and at the beginning of session
in 14, with a full report and recommendations. We will work with DENR.
We will work with stakeholders. We will work through our legislative
body. We will work with corps and we will work with EPA. Thank you.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Cook. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’d like to move for a
favorable report, as soon as we can? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Hold up for a
second. Senator Kinnaird. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chair. Well,
this is my district. This is my lake. It touches both of my counties.
And I would like sort of a period of comment and a series of questions,
if I may. There were years of negotiation and public comment that got us
to the point where we are now. And I realize the cities are very
unhappy. Guilford and Greensboro got out last year. Durham, and I
realize that people don’t want to put the money in. You know, it’s sort
of a love nurture, what happens upstream and what you put in the water
ends up downstream. But it just bothers me that those years of
negotiation and public comment are just going to be turned over. I don’t
see that, there’s new science or new elected officials, but I don’t see
that. So I have a couple of questions. First of all, and you’re saying
there’s new technology. I’d like to know what that is. But I’d like to
know what the EPA is going to say about this because they’re very much
involved. And what is going to be the costs? What is the new technology
and what is the cost going to be? [SPEAKER CHANGES] That’s exactly why
we’re going to have the study committee, by the way. To come back with a
plan and that plan not only will have a cost figure for mitigation,
hopefully at the lake or in the lake. But it also will have, part of the
recommendation will be how the basin – this is a basin issue by the way.
I want to be clear, this is not to involve folks outside the basin – how
the basin is going to pay for this. It needs to be a contributory
agreement, among all the basin stakeholders. What is our feeling from
the standpoint of the federal government, the corps, and EPA. If you’ll
notice in your bill, it specifically talks about how we will immediate
engage the EPA and the corps to help us mitigate a situation that to
date is causing a terrible water condition in the Jordan Lake. As far as
technology

Representative: go to Senator Keneer. I do not want to…I think there are
some folks here that can talk a little bit more about hat. The bottom
line is if you are satisfied with the water, these are working. If you
would like for us to start afresh, take a new approach, find out how all
of us can benefit with a cleaner lake with a new method of mitigation is
what this is about; otherwise, you have got what you going to get.
Representative: One last if I may, and then I will be done. When really
have we done anything? We have put the rules in place but… Greens
County, Gilford County got out of it last year. We have not done much of
anything yet, so how can we say it is working?
Representative: There actually has been a lot done and a lot to be done.
The point here is that what we have had done, a lot of that in point
source, where it is just discharged, over this time period, we have seen
no relevance. We have also had studies done, some independent, some
through the division of water quality. To be honest with you, in a
meeting in Burlington, NC, when the question was asked, this is going to
cure the problems that the Jordan Lake, and they stood there in public
saying they could not make any guarantee with no significant increase in
the quality in this timeframe. I think it is safe to say that we really
need to revamp our thoughts and improve the lake quality, and, I think
this study will do it.
Speaker: Senator Raven?
Representative: Thank you. I just want to make sure that I have the
concepts under. What we are going to do is keep doing what we are doing,
so there is really no change for the near term, while we study the
problem and try to fix it for the long term: does that capitalize it?
Representative: Not exactly, but it is close. We actually stayed a lot
of the rules a couple of years ago, so you should not see any material
changes in this next year, but we are repealing the rules that are
currently in place and immediately proceeding into next year with new
rules based on better scientific evidence, better due diligence, better
technology and probably in a different location than upstream which, for
reasons we believe, will not be able to improve the water quality.
Speaker: Senator Bryant?
Representative: I have a question about the time table about the repeal,
and all this process. From what I can see, it appears that there could
be at least 6 months to a year where there could be no rules, is that
correct? The appeals and the study, and then the time it takes to
reinstitute new rules, that could be a year or two. Could you respond?
Representative: I think the best answer I could give to that is to not
mistake what we are doing now for the fact that we still have to abide
by federal rules. A lot of that has to do with the biggest thing and I
believe that source point. So, federal rules remain in place. This is
just working with our state rules, which, if you can remember, a couple
of years ago, we set those back. So, I do not think you will see a
material change in a year.
Representative: Follow up? Will we have to get any federal approvals
once you repeal all these rules and statutes?
Representative: We are going to take the legislative action to repeal
the rules now. We will obviously be in contact with the federal agencies
to let them now what we are doing. We will have that documented along
with them at that time. We are going to repeal the rules and here is the
bottom line: we need to stop what we are doing, regroup, and formulate a
new plan that is going to increase the water quality of Jordan Lake.
Representative: One more follow up Mr. Chair? Do you have an estimate of
the costs to the state of this process of repealing and reenacting these
rules. I do not know if there is any risk of any fines or penalties, or
anything, but is there some cost? Your history lays out a long term
process involving multiple groups and entities, and approvals in getting
where we were. So is there a cost, or do we need a fiscal on any of
this?

I think it’s a double answer there. We’ve got, I don’t think that
relates to what we have in place. Anytime you’re doing a study and you
got some folks that are going to have some input, I guess there will be
some….that item will be addressed at some point in time. The bigger cost
is not doing something. Right now, Kerry is in the process of looking at
a $2 million aerification system at their intake and they are the least
effective intake on the lake. The cost is going to continue to rise if
we don’t do something.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Senator Tucker.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Thank you, Mr. Chair, I’ll be brief. A couple things, are we talking
about high algae content in the lake and there has been no movement in
that in eight years to speak of?
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
We’ll there’s actually been no movement since the formation because it
was a record from the time that the core went on record that it would
have high nutrients, it would have high algae content and it’s been
there since the formation of the lake and remains there today.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
One other follow up.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Follow up.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
This is a drinking water lake. Of course it’s been around since I drove
down 64 going to state back in the 70s when it was being built. How many
municipalities dump treated waste-water into the lake?
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Senator Tucker, that may be a staff comment. I cannot give you an answer
on that. That’s a good question.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Jeff.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
We have folks from the department here who can probably answer it more
specifically, but the basin basically starts with Guilford County, runs
down through Alamance, parts of Orange, Durham, much of Chatham and a
little part of Wake. Most municipalities that have wastewater systems,
Burlington, Greensboro, I believe they discharge into the upper part of
the basin which eventually flows into the lake.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Senator Clodfelter.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Gunn, looking at your proposed study, a
lot of the topics that you’ve got here are fairly technical or involve
expert knowledge. I’m curious about the decision to have the study be
done entirely by legislators rather than groups such as the EMC that has
backup of that kind of technical expertise. Why do the study with a
group of legislators rather than the ENC for example.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Senator Clodfelter, I thank you for the question. I think that the
commission is going to be made up of legislators, but it also, I think I
made reference, that we plan on drawing on all technical and
stakeholders, even some from the public sector, some from the private
sector to come up with a plan and a study to make sure that we’re
getting the best information, but I think the makeup is simply for the
commission, but the commission’s role will be to do a complete study and
use folks, whether it be public or from the private that can give us
valuable information as we try to modify these rules.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Members of the committee, Senator Cook moved to accept the proposed
Committee Substitute. Also, I guess that was for the bill itself. I
don’t have anybody from an audience listed to speak on this bill
so...nobody signed up. I’m sorry, Senator Hartsell.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
I just...this is a very simple question. Has anybody ever monitored the
effectiveness of the rules that are in place now as to reduction of
content. Is there any study that anybody has done as to whether or not
this is reduced content? That’s my question.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Thank you, Senator Hartsell. I have a...going to the…bear with me a
second, I’m trying to get to the right page. I’ve got a study that goes
back that DENR did from 2004 through 2012. That study was to look at the
percentage amount of phosphorus, nitrogen, and chlorophyll in the lake.
As this graph would indicate to you, nothing on this chart was...

Tell you that between 2000, for the last eight years, 2005, 2012 or 4 to
12, that there has been any, any improvement in the lake and in some
situations it’s gone downhill a little bit. So we basically have had no
improvement in this whole time and the studies have been consistently
year to year.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up?
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes follow up. And the intakes and discharges from
the watershed have they changed at all, during the period of adoption of
these rules?
[SPEAKER CHANGES] I don’t think so. I don’t think so.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Tucker.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman. Just to follow up; Senator
Gunn’s staff shared with me that there are multiple multiple
municipalities in this clean water lake, that we use for drinking water,
dumping treated waste water into the lake. Multiple ones. I don’t know
to add
[SPEAKER CHANGES] You talking about directly
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Directly, directly into Jordan Lake.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Members of the Committee, the motion before you set
forth by Senator Cook is unfavorable to the original, favorable to the??
All those in favor will say Aye.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Opposed No. The Ayes have it. Thank you.
Next on the agenda is Senate Bill 112. Senator Jackson. This is a
proposed committee substitute. Senator Jackson moves for adoption for
discussion purposes. All those in favor will say Aye.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Opposed no. Senator Jackson the floor is yours.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman, members of the committee.
This is a rather lengthy bill, but I’ll try to run through it very
quickly and will be happy to answer any questions at the end. A lot of
this is from the recommendation of the VRC committee that met in the
interim, and Part One is basically just a technical change. What it
amounts to is adding the words “and operate” to the general statute to
conform to Senate bill 810 that was ratified in June of last year. Part
Two clarifies the process for appeals from civil penalties assessed by a
local government that has established and administers a state approved
erosion and sedimentation control program, purely technical and an ERC
recommendation. Part Three amends the notice procedure to repairing
property owners that adjoin property subject to an application for a
dredge and field permit. This is a ?? request and part of their efforts
to fast track certain permits. Part Four amends various statutes
governing wildlife to conform to federal law. This is another technical
change sent over by them, and this makes technical corrections that more
accurately reflect protected and endangered species safeguards. Part
Five(a) amends the statute regulating ownership or use of venomous
reptiles to correctly refer to them in the term as antivenin not
antivenom. So, that is certainly purely technical. I didn’t know what
antivenin was until this came out. Part 5(b) amends the statute
governing investigation of suspected violations, seizures, and
dispossessions of reptiles to direct law enforcement personnel to
consult with representatives of the North Carolina Museum of Natural
Science or the North Carolina Zoological Park to identify appropriately
and safe measures to seize a reptile. ?? has asked that we put this in
to protect the law enforcement officers who are being called out in this
?? some of these snakes that are invading our state, and other reptiles
as well. Part 6 amends administrative procedure act to provide the
Wildlife Resource Commission with temporary rule making authority for
manner of take. Currently the Wildlife Resource Commission can change
the seasons, but the courts have found that WRC cannot change the manner
of take. For example, the WRC can lengthen deer season, if there is a
high population of does, but they cannot execute taking bucks during the
extended season. Part 7 amends the definition of the term “build upon
area” as it pertains to storm water management. In 2006 session law
currently includes partially impervious surfaces and definition of
“build upon areas”. New language removes conflicting language and
clarifies that gravel and other pervious material as well as partially
impervious material, paving material that absorbs water or allows water
infiltration is not included in “build upon area”. This new language
creates an incentive for developers to use impervious or partially
pervious paving materials instead of impervious pavement, which I think
should be environmental friendly. Part 8 provides that underground
storage tanks and systems installed after January

...the 1st, 1991, and prior to April 1st, 2001, are not required to
comply with well setback requirements or provide secondary containment
until January the 1st, 2020. This is another date of request because the
underground storage tanks and systems installed after April the 1st,
2011 already had a requirement for the secondary setbacks.
Part 9 amends the rules in the North Carolina administrative code that
pertain to open burning for land clearing or right away maintenance.
We've been working with ?? to help them change the rules in accordance
with Secretary ??'s goal of lessening the permit process when
applicable, and this will do so.
Section 10 exempts ponds that are constructed and used for agricultural
purposes from our ?? buffer rules. This section provides that the ??
buffer rules must apply if the use of the property adjacent to the pond
changes such that it no longer is used for agriculture. And it
grandfathers in ponds used for agriculture that were either in existence
on or constructed after July the 22nd, 1997.
We've worked with Farm Bureau to provide relief to farmers who are
building ponds for irrigation and find themselves losing land around the
ponds because the distance of the ?? buffers. This will not affect any
?? Buffer that is currently in statute, and we'll repeat that. This will
not affect any ?? buffer that is currently in statute. It just keeps
farm ponds from having to live out the last standard.
Part 11 amends the rule also in the administrative code to provide
reduced flow alternatives to the daily flow rates for design for waste
water systems. And this section would exempt proposed waste water
systems from complying with the daily flow rate for design. There are
numerous options that an engineer can employ to design a low flow
system, including waterless urinals and low flow faucets. My Sampson
County accent's getting me, y'all, hang on. This sanction allows
technology and design flexibility to allow more development on existing
lots, which is great especially in rural areas. This provision rewards
conservation efforts through low flow design and should allow for more
development for technology is available to overcome changes of ?? and
waste water systems policies in our state.
Part 11 further provides that proposed waste water systems with a daily
flow for a design of less than 3,000 gallons per day, are not required
to obtain state level review for the system. This language was added for
clarification because 3,000 gallon restriction is when a permit is
kicked up to the state level from the County.
Part 12 amends the continuing education requirements for certified well
contractors to provide that a well contractor must obtain six hours of
continuing education within a three year period rather than obtaining
six continuing education units within a one year period, as is currently
required by rule. This tries to help them out by not changing the
continuing education credits, but allows them to accumulate them in
three years instead of the current one year when they all have to go in
and pay. This is done in many other instances with licenses, such as
pesticide license and others as done over a three year period.
Part 13 directs the Department of Transportation to adopt rules for
selective pruning within highway rights of ways for vegetation that
obstructs a motorist's view of properties on which agri-tourism
activities occur. Some of our wineries and flower farms live and die on
people seeing their operation from the road and stopping. Overgrown
vegetation can cause serious economic harm to these small business
owners, and I believe it is not dependent on the state of our business
for survival. Or it is dependent, I am a believer that it is dependent
on our survival for these small groups. I will see the Department of
Transportation adopt rules that allow these individuals the opportunity
to prune that vegetation around their signs or entrances and not wait
for DOT to arrive.
Part 14 prohibits public entities from purchasing or acquiring an
ownership interest in rural property with known contamination without
approval of the Governor and the consulate state. This section applies
to a purchase or acquisition of interest in rural property occurring on
or after July the 1st, 2013. This state has a problem with public
entities buying contaminated sites with the knowledge that the state
will clean up the mess. This language will sort of correct that, moving
forward.
Part 15 prohibits a local government from impeding the storage,
retention or use of non hazardous recycled materials including asphalt
pavement, ?? or roofing shingles in properly zoned storage facilities
through regulation of the height for recycled material stock piles.
The...

...environmental and economic benefits of using recycled asphalt
pavements are very significant and measures should be taken to maximize
the use of this material. I'll be glad to entertain any questions.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Members of the committee, the bill is before you. Questions? Senator
Ford.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Senator Jackson, I'm looking for a little bit of clarity, sir, please,
on section two starting about line 49 as it relates to the collection of
civil penalties that would be remitted to the civil penalty and
forfeiture fund rather than going back to the local government's general
fund as non-tax revenue.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Okay. This was a recommendation from the ERC committee and I'll ask
staff to help me out there on this one.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Jennifer.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Senator Ford, that is actually a constitutional requirement that fines
and forfeitures go to that fund, so this is a correction needed to this
statute.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Senator Bingham.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was just going to move for a favorable
report with your permission.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Hold that for a second. Any other questions for the committee? Senator
Tucker.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
I'm sorry I had to leave, Mr. Chair. I'm back to ask Senator Jackson a
question about the procedure for adopting a temporary rule by the
wildlife commission. They can just adopt most anything they need in
this. Where's there accountability or control or regulation or whatever
there.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Senator Tucker, I have that same concern. I sort of don't like giving
free reign on rule-making, doesn't matter which agency done being
directed to the wildlife resource commission; but, I have spoken with
Gordon Myers, and Gordon has told me of the issues. And Gordon, would
you like to address this question. I think he can give you a very good
explanation, or he did for me.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Gordon?
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator, the wildlife commission has the
explicit authority to adopt temporary rules for certain conditions for
setting seasons and bag limits, for establishing no wake zones, and also
for gameland regulations. And the way we implement those rules is we do
it concurrently with permanent rules subsequent to holding public
hearings and in that way we can implement season changes that we believe
are necessary biologically to move forward with or to satisfy conditions
on landscape that we need to address. But we do go through the public
hearing process with full public involvement prior to initiating
temporary rule-making.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Thank you. Also, Senator Tucker, I'd like to add that they already have
this capability currently. What we're giving them the authority to do
is the manner of take, whether we need to take more bows, as we're
seeing we need to.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
One follow-up.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Follow-up.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Senator Jackson, if you would advise the wildlife commission they need
to reduce their bag limit on quail because there are none left for the
most part.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
I will certainly see that message gets passed along. [LAUGHTER]
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Senator Tucker, I agree. Any other questions? I didn't see anybody
from the audience sign up. Members of the committee, Senator Bingham
sends forth a motion unfavorable to the original, favorable as to the
Proposed Committee Substitute. All those in favor will say Aye, opposed
No. The Ayes have it. Thank you.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, members.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Next up, 689, amend trapping law on Senator Sanderson. Hold on. Senator
Jackson moves... well, where are we? Hold on.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee?
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Hold on, Senator Sanderson.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Mr. Chair?
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Senator Jackson.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
I have an amendment I'd like to run.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Send forth your amendment. Members have copies?
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
They're being passed out.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Okay.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
And Senator Sanderson will explain the amendment. ?? And if not, I'll
help you.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
And we may need some help.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
I'll just wait. Okay, thanks. Senator Sanderson.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Of the original bill 689 that was before you,
that was before you did one thing. It totally removed a specific type
of trap known as a Conner bear trap or a body-gripping trap off of dry
land and required it to be totally set in the water. [AUDIO ENDS]

The fish live the 56 and stakeholders involved in this Monday of this
bill region and the cost of growing concern loan between the interaction
between tractors and the and what they do and don't understand what they
did with the colts in hiring and limit the sale of five that if I
realize that areas: a couple married, made the offer both of these
groups oppose both of these groups are no great deal and how they do a
play and the out of control populations of all of our animal, came from
home via a memo before you left Iraq to these discussions with the with
the trappers with the dollar's wildlife and those who had a recall to
concerns on those several things do not touch blame this on the board is
here to help us we also have a couple people from all published the
colors are the model to say we're home and basically what it (SPEAKER
CHANGES ) does is it goes back and everyplace is read receipts back
instead two about the larger size, the judge to allow them to be said of
the solar system only response because it is a great on day two of two
of the population switch if you've ever been, of subjected to that she
could be worse than the other Cuba, can create a tremendous problem for
farmers four tree farmers for a long people to a heather Lamm turned
into lakes limit that the long-term intellects and so we go back and we
sent them back in the statute really go back and make some other changes
on one of the things such as Salem change which affect a very important
as the bucket six are prohibited above to see it is somewhere you take
one of the straps with his bodyguard contracts Utah 5 gallon bucket over
the couple have followed by Texas way into a new set of this traffic
from protect of those animals there that are not targeted to be trapped
from protecting given some protection of the biggest problem that is
that bodyguards all their lives or sale of buckets and when they have in
the wallet and they say about it the first thing you think about the
food and so the first thing that is to convince of this bucket and the
money it takes care of all of that goal is so those are born to be
prohibited to be used on the next thing that we're looking at is some ,
chaps that the government can only sell dry land by 77 conditions one is
that they are inside a specially designed on the enclosure of this
statute what the square box , they're the trap is said to 8 inches back
in 7 B boxing has a useful for its overhang on the home the couple also
which really prevents that we had two debates can take your most strong
protest calls all from getting inside their strengths are even making
contact with the show, trips, the thing it does is the default if it's
all companies sell land if it's a whole bunch of folks a problem, which
in most cases will make it impossible four of a memo is not being
targeted luxury to calm about saying that it does say is that he talks
about the midsize for the straps those that are clean, half inches in 6
1/2 inches, they can be said of also below the ground, they can be
dated, (SPEAKER CHANGES) you can you can set the straps on trial and if
there are specifics as without they oppose this debate that the uses one
calls the balls two strips home located as is stated dazzle out any of
the stretch to be set in seven and close on, say enclosed area of
talking about a few at a squirrel in that agreement, a possible new
house you will somebody to come and get them out for you and all of
these steps are allowed to be said, in those conclusions where would
also were of the animal skin can I get two outs in the final thing that
this does is that if the louse wildlife , which some are already doing
that are going to testify this training program of four track for a
station on two make the trappers sophomore where of the consummate that
can be used and then they should be specific to the panorama mall that
are trying to track-9:00 this morning on almost a caller from this bill
were on board with this month after many discussions in the ??....

several meetings, and we hope that this will blow a long way and
alleviate a lot of the problems that trappers and hunters
come to Canada. there are three questions would have wildlife here
early. at least one
run like a good members of the committee any questions in the minutes
before you today lodges
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
can move for firewall forward, though I work improve this bill on
serving fiber on the levels taken inanimate. the community and audience
finally got stable signed up itself.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Oregon Seo amendment, or if they do, they'll
justify several record
Monday was fair use of growth of the Eastern fought for milk are a lot
of thoughtful or social origin, and we invite you of his lives of
children and from that described an updated middle of work put in to
trying to work with all the group and commitments led a lot of
discussion about it. I just wanted to say from our point of view, and
the safety of our hunting dog of" the
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
thanks are anyone else
to defy several record, but I'm starting white president ultralight
trappers Association and I'm here to oppose this bill. there's been a
lot of good work done on it, but is there something development into
restrictive. this bill devastating have a devastating effect on both.
while it managers and landowners like if you take away one the most
effective tools in certain capacities. the control problem animals in
both rural areas and urban situations, making it more costly for
property owners to have these animals removed drivers in the state are
already the most regulated sporting group Barna, we have to have written
permission to be on the landowners land. it has been that way for
decades, and we are most times invited to get rid of these animals while
she trappers who set legally and landowners be penalized for someone
else's lack of responsibility. this bill will lead to a lot more
expensive problems for landowners, local governments, and residential
property owners, drivers provide a vital service to the people of the
state and this bill will cripple us.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
thank you. thanks for
a few chairmen and committee members, my name is can now come to
represent the Humane Society of the United States. I am North Carolina
State Director Hamilton, Terry. I would like to ask for your support of
SB six eighty nine, their chops sometimes known as body crushing traps
cause suffering and death of millions of animals each year. there
already banned in nine states, including West Virginia and South
Carolina on land here in North Carolina. there are many reports of
animals getting caught in these traps, including dogs, cats and hunting
dogs, animals caught unintentionally these traps like hunting dogs and
containing animals can persist in agony for hours before dying, the body
pressing topic is designed to snap shot from the spinal column at the
base of the skull for a quick kill. however, the trap often misses this
vital spot or does not close enough force to kill what you certainly are
you the animal unconscious. they chastised Negro down on the chassis or
pelvis crushing bones, blood vessels, nerves and causing excruciating
pain. imagine a Sunday walk in the woods of your dog coming to a tragic
end in sight. in closing, I'll respectfully ask that you ban all kind
are cast in North Carolina on dry land with no exceptions. thank you,
thank you, my name is off J Phillips on the memorable contracts
Association, Inc. is stand for a long time up to the greater part of the
North Carolina five jammies. how did strategies correctly glam comedies
to be the distracted use correctly like any other finally have a
privilege to veterans, including it is not a dangerous weapon in the
hands of a person is lost. what to do with our

This mailing list of safe, he's just like you said about the latest
budget say us a lot of trails with east rights and delta tree on my
enemy expo fox indexing and of a body of animation when the kind get the
nod affiliate offices are dear Beth of Mr. (SPEAKER CHANGES) As a
chance to take the Gifford of the year old alma mater what color the
list they wish to stop the cellophane tells his sister grateful to use
very effective in utilizing that animal if it is correctly used a whole
thing, that's a lot more but not let out of politics can call centers
actually is got to check for Senator Bentsen and other farmers and
would this ramp by all the data tracking the budget say it's OK and the
bobcats like a military body their spots take a 60 to 70 pound believer
in a wooden box of discount card good column that probably ought to stop
by Calvin of this display with any questions to food contact effort is
made to get copied by getting big Sur anyone else several first , they
just see if he vetoes to the farmer farce policy industry and in the
farmers will miss a couple questions and concerns me more news is we
move toward server five produce crops in North Carolina we have, how was
this: should delay the waste is this bill will allow us to be able to
move four with that this would question from a lawsuit waters off Haiti
will the following a test of (SPEAKER CHANGES) Mr. Myers if he would
like to possibly a position that question should stay within one of them
would assume the responsibility that his chair and cored wire stretched
a lot less resources commission and McKesson the question us are still
be a broader goals, including that of their contract from this and the
bill to four users really an attempt to preserve the use of the Convair
trap of two women and nine when we recognize important value of this
tract home for wildlife commission we disagree with the assertion that
this is a limitation of the 220 in terms of 937 would devastate wildlife
management of their impacts are ours are well managed, you realize his
own tracks loss of 220 and circumstances in which were authorizing one
provision in the bill was nominated wise to 220 may still be freely used
under deprivation permit issued by wildlife commission has very
important consideration any landowner can obtain the depredation permits
abundance ratio than in any impact properties and that is a tool that is
intact within this bill Tell follow thank you, exclusively in some other
counties we have been amazed that programs and that I guess it would
have won this will cost center that would apply to all seven under 113
to 91.90 believe the separate statuary, commissioners are set out for
track and beavers which provides much greater flexibility to use of air
center way , said, questioning from a IE said the box, transfer the box
and hacked away any dolls are can't start children might seek their
hands than a problem running the NEA a man actually on how many
accidents might happen that way a sender we all have the day of relative
to what those potential impacts maybe however this situation would
greatly reduce the potential 5,000,085 there with them once we have a
box here you'd like to see it, it greatly reduces the potential risk of
what the necessary summary he'll play the CD should only have 225 air
trapped inside an enclosure to beaver somewhere not even we'll know
where the S.F. got, 740 2¢ a day into the hands of a a sixth in such a
test ??...............

The members of the committee ??? Senator Bingham has, actually we have
to vote on the amendment first that Senator Bingham has in the move for
a favorable report. All of those in favor of the amendment sent forth by
Senator Jackson will say aye, opposed no. The bill is before you as
amended. Senator Bingham moves favorable as amended. All those in favor
will say aye, opposed no. Aye 7. Senate Bill 151 Coastal Policy Reform
??? of 2013. Thank you, Senator. Senator Raburn moves for the adoption
of PCS, all those in favor will say aye, opposed no. Senator Raburn,
the floor is yours.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Thank you Mr Chairman, ladies and gentlemen of the Senate. This bill has
4 parts. 1st part amends the marine fisheries law, 2nd part amends
terminal growing construction law, third part camera permitting and
forth part clarifying actions dealing with municipalities in cities on
the coast. A group of us got together, a bipartisan group from both
houses and looked at different things on the coast that we would like to
address during this session and we came up with this bill. There are
some other things that we wanted to look into, but this one pretty much
summed up what we thought were the most important. Part one amends the
marine fisheries law, which simply states in every county there will be
fishing licenses for sale. Some counties don't necessarily warrant that,
and so this allows the commission to have them if they seek necessary
but not demand that they're there. Section two amends the terminal
growing law and it makes the following changes to the law we passed in
2011. Provides an environmental impact statement for the growing
pursuant the federal law is sufficient to satisfy the terminal growing
law. It repeals the following: long term maintenance and monitoring of
the growing- implementation of litigation measures, restoration of
public/private trust of the growing's adverse impact on property. This
is addressed further in the bill. It provides that requirement of an
inlet management must be reasonable and may not require to address
speculative matters or impose requirements whose cost outweigh the
benefit. It repeals the requirement that an ?????? for terminal growing
demonstrates the structures and infrastructure are imminently threatened
by erosion and non structural approaches to the erosion control. It
provides the coastal resources commission to consider the benefits of a
terminal growing when determining whether terminal growing will result
in adverse impacts to private property. It repeals the requirement that
inlet management plan be adequate for purposes of monitoring and
litigating the impact. It repeals the limitation that no more than four
terminal growing may be permitted, i think they are underway currently
the total. It repeals the prohibition use of certain type of local
government financing in terminal growings. And repeals the direction of
the department of environment and natural resources to adopt rules to
implement terminal growing law. Part three amends the camera permitting
law and it basically requires that any person developing property in an
area of environmental concern to obtain a permit, a camera permit.
Section four would limit the areas of environmental concern to those
designated at the time of the permit, in other words- we don't change
the rules as you go along.When you apply for your permit the rules are
in effect at that time are the rules that you will live by until your
permit is receded. The final part- part four clarifies that cities may
enforce ordinances within the state public trust areas which allows
cities to remove certain structures that can be hazardous and to enforce
their rules

?? The mean high-water mark of the beaches, and what have you. And the
final thing is the effective date the provisions of government issuance
of ?? counter permits will become effective when this act becomes law.
And the provisions governing the abilities of the cities to enforce
ordinances will become effective July 1, 2013. The remainder of just one
week past. Now I'll answer any questions on the parts of the committee
if the committee has questions if that's okay with you Mister Chairman?
[SPEAKER CHANGES] It is. [SPEAKER CHANGES] ?? Questions? Senator Bryant?
[SPEAKER CHANGES] I was just curious as to this terminal groin, all
these terminal groin changes? So this means now there's no, I need an
understanding, I'm assuming there's no limit to the number of terminal
groins that can, is this on the coast? Is that unlimited now? [SPEAKER
CHANGES] Senator Raven. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, senator. There is a
limit because there are only 14 inlets. And so if every ?? in the state
decided they would like a terminal groin, which is a structure on one
side of an inlet. Then there would be none but 14. Which is, in other
words, everyone who has an inlet, or that is affected by an inlet, could
in theory anyway have a groin if the so wish. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay,
follow up. This question is for the sponsor and/or the staff. So now,
with all the repeals it's hard for me to wrap my head around what is now
required for the other 11 inlets I guess. To get terminal groins, what
would they have to do? And who can do it? Will somebody refresh my
recollection on that and walk us through who can initiate or have a
terminal groin, and then what do they have to do to have it? [SPEAKER
CHANGES] Would you like me to answer that? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Please, if
you would like to. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Senator Bryant, the
municipality or the counties in which these inlets exist would be those
that would be applying and they would apply through the department for
those groins. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Following what requirements would they
now have to meet? Since so many of the requirements have been repealed.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] I'll let staff cover that. The requirements still
there are quite stringent. We've changed some of the rules as far as
the, how they can be paid for. We've added things that put a little more
teeth in it as to who will remove these if they're not functioning
properly. Or if damaging is, if damage is approved. Just how we go about
that. The staff would chime in on that. Mr. Hudson? [SPEAKER CHANGES]
Thank you Mister Chairman. Senator the current requirements are set out
beginning near the top of page 3 of the ?? committee substitute. In
sub-section E there. And you can see from the red line, the deletions,
the strike-throughs, and the underlining, these are things that are
either being taken out or added. So, E is basically what the applicant
and as Senator Raven mentioned, this is typically going to be the local
governments in the area of the inlet. This is the information they have
to supply in their application. The first thing there that is being
changed right now under current law, the applicant has to demonstrate
that infrastructure would be immanently threatened by erosion and other
approaches, other non-structural erosion control approaches are
impracticable. That requirement is being removed so that they just have
to demonstrate that structures are threatened by erosion. The
sub-division 2 there is being changed. There's an environmental impact
statement requirement under another statute that could be triggered by
another terminal groin application. This basically says that if you have
to do an environmental impact statement under federal law, that will
suffice for the environmental impact statement here. Down in
sub-division 5, this is the inlet management plan as one of the
requirements for the applicant. They have to have a plan for managing
the inlets. Construction, monitoring, and maintenance, throughout its
life. And this basically says that the mitigation measures have to be
reasonable and don't have to address speculative matters. Subdivision 6
is again another requirement, a proof of financial assurance. Right now,
the financial assurance has to provide for the long term maintenance and
?? measures as provided in the inlet management plan. Modification or
removal of the groin as provided

The plant and restoration college come by than public Trust Property of
the boy has adversely impacts on several of those parts from portions of
the financial assurance provisions are being removed so that if this the
CS now becomes law only become the block a sure removal of the turmoil
boy would need to be covered by the financial assurance that the father
of page four, this is some subdivisions are subsection S Allies beyond
the backers of the coastal resources commission has to consider and
whether 92, issue a permit for terminal and I'm consistent with what I
just read from the application that subdivision two is the norm is
single and no longer have to two of demonstrate that the structures
originally threatened on that and other matters other structures would
take care of the bomb in determining whether not the issue the permit
because she also has to come consider the benefits of the C adversely
impacts from N mission would no longer have to consider whether they can
let major plans aquifer of monitoring the impacts of the turnover one of
many C7 division are some sections GMH are being removed G is the
limitation on the number from Owens right now the current law only four
firm is what may be issued as they were moved, and then subsection H
would disallow income surtax of local government financing is typically
found in nonvoting bonds of the city's remove said that would be an
option for local governments to pursue some especially what the current
on requirements are enlisting change to the message N 30 and nine AUIID
is suffering to spank me for years we shot off the grounds that we find
me to get past that there were so many restrictions L plan on learn over
this explanation section to section no longer have to no longer have
2:00 AM (SPEAKER CHANGES) very concerned ever be the photos I am
thankful that you have left in the same EL MEM testimony last 5:00 AM at
5:00 AM (SPEAKER CHANGES) and two older may suffer greatly MM very
concerned that this is happening I just think it's out of the trailer
containing the most agree two F burns for allowing someone very
disappointed with the scale that salad thank you for bringing the
spokesman said early indications of stepping regulation that it would
protect a patrician are a good looks and the system goes for which there
by-one FAS um people to the public that would like to speak Elizondo
phenomenal was very much a public issue late in his memory was an issue
with a four cell that this site will generate an attack in a comment
from Elliott’s but soon the leader of first I had my wishes they just
need to do with them off the public, which say the fishermen in the past
assist in some on two controversial and there's a lobbyist and an assist
from the issue of home to call for this Internet thing working with an
octave from negative impacts on other people out yet, just been tested
with public excitement , from Elliott’s that he was Chairman Martin
Schram and represent the North Carolina coastal federation and the
sooner coach consideration as a home ground combat that the CIA public
education for a new organization that was founded off and on the coast
and a 1982 as crime two on more than 10,000 members statewide, are we
have most are members actually an urban areas and one of the week
selling and amount from the that the shuttle a risk also condemned coast
league tour daily dose of the that the offer that talks in a cigarette
and as we were there a wall during the conversation around this: 2001
1000 more are a number of coastal scientists, without going to have
nothing to mistaken the matter except for their research and
consistently, expressed a strong reservations about the use of turmoil
groins four under Russian control of them are many Christians and
including north Carolina’s, we were opposed to the com listing of them
uncomfortable groins, but also fell ??...............

Bill included two got to the law for December brown and others to their
credit includes some very significant reductions for local governments
for local taxpayers from 7 to 9 for the resource mom and pop of the
compromise that was worked out on short notice on maintaining the com
the prohibition altogether was a really responsible bill, and it's
unfortunate, from coastal federation's perspective of thing from the
scientific perspective and I think frankly related to the bomb,
Techsters prospectus only one member of the fatale of the mission was
also core post to move to the prohibition 15 German police from
taxpayers perspective this bill raises many questions and many concerns
on for not just on the conservation slide but are also one of the
economic and tax implications of certicom really expensive, unstructured
former POWs spoke on behalf of the coastal federation bottom of the
coalition of folks who were close to this building 2001 and we would
really accomplish the committee to take unfair aid their router four law
(SPEAKER CHANGES) not just of the environmental impacts of this bill by
the impact on local taxpayers, are bad and the long-term impact on cuts
take a rematch they considered to have a move for that report generated
5H2 clutch be well for millions and how we really grief and I prefer
nearly three SF and 79 the law center in the loss in modest L clears
again with Mister A.(SPEAKER CHANGES) Stewart is a shame that there are
kids are just joining us every night to CME and Ellis describe glass and
ceramic filing program nothing intense project English class lists you
look at the installation of central point in returning CIA impacted
neighboring BGC much they cost CF that Michael use them as needed and I
just want to surprise that we read your hand and accommodating before we
can TS 2 C how the structures in Congress C and its taxpayers are
encouraged and returned to the CL a YAG saturated the database General
Augusto both of those so very briefly if I might have purchased this
concern are about the expansion this will we'll talk about the four bill
frist N2 will increase funding for dredging of these, which would,
hopefully save some of the good from anyone really tech firm along on
taxpayers of North Carolina rather than increase in the long haul up to
the second lay-up on that, to program is underway and this will work
only employee got off the ground and so we're moving four and that's
going to commercial for favorable report and a move to four and takes
quite a bit under those employees are and when you're wrong in this
killing all we're fully alert and washing away , you'll have a look at
no more on this committee would be proud that backdrop for running down
the street and the fact the city would buy a constantly decrying five
say the house and washing away make absolutely no sense today no housing
that will, (SPEAKER CHANGES) of how those wash away a seething again,
put it back, the five apartments in the ms is any other things, to help
people in the front end of the people in the people in the thanking the
center said revenues on table to racial favorable 24) essentially all
those tables say out 95557 baking taken care of them makes a move two of
senate bill 7-8 and Saturday was outside of the smoke from that of a
question about or spoken intermediate care of the than five prepare for
and PCs that the fed ex-adoption the PCs to put the fuselage and they
will stay out there should take us Chairman Ali and that the artifact
could have gone away as standard PCs Systems, and you are going to put
this full of good PCs that PCs is next couple of minor technical changes
from the first edition five changes that the second of the war ??.....

…to B2 on line 18 of page two and on page three around line 22 it simply
said, “That a community college board of trustees is prohibited from
adopting a policy that is more restrictive.” It’s been corrected to say
“more restrictive than state law.” Thank you Mr. Chairman.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Thank you. Members of the committee, the bill essentially is what the
title is. Basically what we’ve got is a situation around the state where
a number of localities and other institutions are trying to take this
legal product and say you can’t consume it outdoors. I just personally
find that objectionable.
I think if you’re walking down the sidewalk you ought to be able to
consume a tobacco product. I think if you’re in a park, outdoors, I
think you ought to be able to consume a tobacco product if that’s what
you choose to do. I certainly think if you’re on a windy beach in
southeastern North Carolina you ought to be able to consume a tobacco
product.
Now I can understand municipalities wanting to have a high fine for
littering, I think that’s reasonable. But I just find it ridiculous that
we can’t be outdoors and have somewhere for people who choose to smoke
to smoke.
And so I’ll be happy to answer any questions. One other point if I
could. I think it’s important for the consuming public to have some
sense of uniformity. You know if you come from out of town and you go
out to the beach and you’re a smoker you might not realize that some
city has it illegal and they’re going to turn you into a criminal
because you smoke outside on a breezy beach. I just think it’s
ridiculous. I think we ought to have some uniformity and I hope you’ll
support the bill.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Senator Bryant.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
To speak on the bill and maybe to ask a question. One of my main
concerns when I think about this in outside sources is now a lot of our
towns, I know in my area, have outdoor family events. We have an outdoor
film series, outdoor music entertainment, a lot of families come,
children, babies.
And I’m concerned that even if you’re outside with 500, 1,000 people
outside and people smoking anywhere throughout that area, and it appears
to me from this they can’t designate a smoking area or anything, they
can’t make any restrictions, so it’s going to really be inhibiting and
dangerous for our families and children.
It is uncontroverted that second-hand smoke exposure to anyone, but
particularly to children stunts their educational processes. We have so
many children now with asthma and other kinds of conditions that you
can’t even bring your family to an outdoor event that’s sponsored by the
city or town and feel safe for your children. That’s just a major
concern.
I know our community colleges in my area have contacted me. They’re
concerned about the success they’ve had with the no-smoking policies
they’ve implemented with the support of their local boards, the
protection it provides for students, employees, et cetera, on the
campus. Plenty of other opportunities for people to smoke before they
get there and when they leave with no complaints.
I just have concern. But I’d ask the sponsor has he had any thought
about or input on the impact of this in these public spaces outdoors
particularly where children and families would be involved? Is he open
to any compromises in that regard? That kind of thing.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Bryant, I may be wrong and if I am
wrong I hope staff will correct me, I don’t believe that the state law,
and that’s what this bill does is make it all uniform, I don’t believe
the state law would prevent there being set aside a designated smoking
area.
I might be wrong about that but I don’t believe the state law requires
that. If it does, I’ll say this. If you’re talking about an outdoor
public event, like an outdoor band or something like that, a concert
series in a Downtown Live kind of thing, I personally think we have to
smell diesel exhaust and I think people can move their children to
another spot if this is really a problem.
I get it when you’re in a sports stadium and you’ve paid $200 or
something to see the Panthers play and the guy next to you has got a big
fat cigar or keeps smoking cigarettes. I kind of get that. But if you’re
at a free public event where you’re free to move around…

Aileen - suits, because I just had a string that your ability to consign
on the tobacco product if you're over ATM and so 45 allegation and
criminal flick for doing it wrong, and a modem to discussion of
compromise is all about the let's not the course we think the people who
go to community colleges I think there'll be a place where they can
legally smoke a cigarette outside the classroom away from everybody , I
still see what the big guy with any of the half dollars to collect
anything that was not going back this is not only from everybody is
endemic it was away from it and(SPEAKER CHANGES) I need some fifth at
the Akita Supply giving outside designated area on the premises by the
fact that they can even make it a day by day the staff can confirm that
populace can be regulated beyond recognition from this to abide by the
understanding is that home state of the grounds there's not a
restriction on smoking column and this would bring local governing
grounds and community college campuses in compliance with state Gov't
grounds on to my understanding is that there's not a restriction there
for good things for the issue has questions for, for Stanford the idea
studies of the scientific evidence that's sad schmoke has custody and
two in the military money from the department that could address that
unload the city's law and Sarah Lawrence their 40 lifts a look of a
nature that usage and have unfettered by received a letter from a
community colleges say they do like this deal because they like being
able to regulate prompts the DL said (SPEAKER CHANGES) to have some
ability to use on me my question is -not sure whether state law is so if
they have noticed the same now if you can't smoke outside of the worship
of all these people congregating right from the door smoking cigarettes
and setter, and now they have a policy that they came from working in
that they like a list that with a simple piece gift of this rule
exchange that said if they can't regulate people congregating in 15
trips and clicking cigarette unable to happen if it passes the test, two
are not proficient in question and then and this is for mysterious
wearer column beyond the attention to try to work and conversely, Salem
a main concern is visit the commute college not saying you can't smoke
anywhere out the worst owner keeps data were 257 on the bottom of the 32
college, said,(SPEAKER CHANGES) but still did not pick up folks would
assert for good class that is something the community college should be
looking for them at a hitter: L. Cardin of the war where people it
almost smell it might have to weave their way through one to smokers and
that the windows area four were at the pump into triumph of simple,
compromise put one really try to dress is the blanket name and the
turning into approval before using a legal product that of PM at a worse
really should the assumption that the data from a podium and allocates a
bad thing I think we've come a long way in the state and relatively
short period of me when I was again a school and become an old filly had
a smoking section of the school that we will have a source link small
killing ½ as good, but you have a still think it's a legal product and
we shouldn't make it so impossible for people who choose to consume that
they're adults to be only do so and an understudy won't work for money
on Friday to Corvallis text of this witness chair (SPEAKER CHANGES)
should I do see if this bill passed be at the concept of the campus
three smoke you could have you can have a campus for each other across
the creek and critics were shown that the jury that that would be when I
would object to the finger on behalf of the smoking area available just
good stead cell division to get there?? from off campus ago for Ron
between classes Becerra, not yet tried to shield the people who know was
stolen from having it be overly intrusive boat ??.....

From ?? semifinalists in the truck and smoke and the party line I just
got a letter stating why that is saw such a big deal felt that if this
is so much additionally I have no release complaining about the current
wall in the savory happy with that and some innocence you're taking away
rights from the local areas in local schools to determine policy means
they're happy with full with the way it is in line for hopeless that one
of a strange and yesterday, as the smokers unhappy with the coming
sooner and all other state in LME Care can leave what I'm really not
released a study to me was that if they make you can (SPEAKER CHANGES)
assimilate the beach and smoked cigarettes and an end to download me
people of-use in the news and you're in the state with Leslie H is
implementing the accord is today and I just had this look at all and my
attention and are realizing that was the one owned a lot of different
places; strong that we have some uniformity like a seven people were
visiting the idea that the college campus model their situation and
because this example used if for no good if you're visiting the jail
more work for, jail and a good PDT on this surely as soon they're gonna
be breaking goal is to start a share on Beecher Walden someone your
signal for each bottle think you should assume the man down as one of
which converts full of the list in a landslide price-chip from bill
emission and that the mission, modular maybe should distinguish between
palm beaches and community college campuses have said that
1,000,000-dollar complex set of the happy too often too, were(SPEAKER
CHANGES) home store cosmos amendment: all news from 51 else tried to
have come forward and what to say the uniform policy it was solved the
mystery much easier two to get hold of divisive money around the idea of
just saying your words can be more restrictive than what the state law
is one of which would and would we have a state?? (SPEAKER CHANGES) and
that's that it clearly is 12 people estate and will legislature this
point and on-the number of things are as follows to play storm and that
the mambo open the two are trying to create some accommodation for the
whole community colleges about this I will say for the commission of 10)
said I would not be a potential blanket ban on community college of the
oven two in the hand you a smoking area since the fourth inning critic
of Muslim men said four of the vagueness chairman, senator idea of the
Kingdome is 9:49, Scott said it is a novel approach anybody wanted to
consumers tobacco policy that would kill himself would have liked to do
that by shrub with the fact that few people to stop and concept because
the problem worse than that of HM in which each Al play the same day,
when full set of clubs believe that they could have played with the best
text box four concerned about the product is itching to control the
letter with this project is listless misunderstanding is opened and then
you will eat up and talked almost too calm the commissary littering and
the toxicity producer of tobacco products that will be to some of these
limitations Mr. the public can't leave the plane,(SPEAKER CHANGES) the
question from elks stemming from Ventura opera should come as star four
from the justices said the board insisted that produced by the Ira or
not designed for delivering they can do that effectively deliver more
tests and liberals national interest at all to the top issues, like
sincere abortion from older folks on wall Peter M truck up somehow not
oppose two restrictions that would go out of control the littering the
senate should watch, well, with a healthy sign for that'll have a
problem with that been prevented from that this thing could then go home
to effective if this letter was sent to smoke a cigarette is collecting
their ballots are a few of the seven bell building at the source of the
life and your paycheck and when to quit lows mostly in one direction and
HM invasion of self and if it were smoking in two events rather single
family palm units could sell or move a few CD of the strain of fat
release issued along that this money: seven operations, so the Malik
??...........

…that, I just think we ought to draw the line somewhere.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Bingham
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman. Senator Newton and I actually
introduced something prior to your bill and Senator Jackson’s aware of
this at ?? community colleges. I had a change of heart on that and the
reason being the community colleges, I got a lot of push back on this
issue because of the board, the students. They’ve taken a lot of time
and effort in making a decision on whether to make this a smoke-free
campus and in fact they did and Davidson… and it’s worked very well.
Also even went to the trouble of talking to some students that smoked
and they didn’t find it as a great inconvenience. That would be the
reason for me to…your other arguments are very strong but I do certainly
couldn’t agree with you on the community college campus aspect of this.
I just wanted you to know that upfront. So anyway, thank you. Thank you
Mr. Chairman.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Rabin.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. I share many of the concerns expressed by
Senator Ford and Senator ??. I’m getting a lot of push back. I think the
best thing to do would be to move toward some sort of accommodation for
designated areas in some of the places, like the schools. I don’t like
to home in on just the schools. The beaches same thing. It’s not so much
a case anymore of everybody knowing the health risk and choosing to die,
it’s that the self-discipline to police yourself. Nobody knows how it
feels to strip a cigarette anymore. It’s an old army term where you had
to rip them down, ball them up and throw them away so there was no
litter. I think there’s room in here to negotiate a little bit and get
into a place where you don’t have just open carte blanche because it’s
almost an unaffordable thing in some places to keep cleaning up after
people who won’t clean up after themselves anyhow. I think we have to
consider that part of it and I would work with you on trying to figure
out some words for it. I have no problem with prohibitions or letting
people do what they want. It’s simply a case of what’s practical and
what opens the door to things that are way out of bounds for what we
want to happen any place that we go, crunching through cigarettes or
Canadian geese or whatever. Okay.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] This bill will have a serial referral to state and
local government so it’s not the only stop before we get to the floor.
So we can take another look at it when you’re looking at the types of
things that you’re working on. Senator Newton, I have just one question.
If these people do declare to go smoke-free, is there any way that we
can remove any type of excise tax for tobacco taxes that go to those
areas that want to be smoke-free? Or you want to work on that amendment?
[SPEAKER CHANGES] I certainly would be interested in working on that.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] I’m not sure yet how that can be done but I think that
would be reasonable. That could be a good logic instead.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] We’re going to vote on this bill today but we’ll have
to come back and take up the rest of the bill some other time. They’ve
got to use this room and our staff. They’ve got somewhere else to go to
so they’re tired of us already but Senator Jackson moves for a favorable
report on senate bill 703. All those in favor will say aye. Opposed no.
The ayes have it. We’re adjourned.